Average Adapti bar score Forum

[THE_U]

My scores have been decreasing the past few days, ugh, not good, just a week and half left too

If it makes you feel any better, I haven't been having a great week, either. Randomly doing poor in areas I'm strong in. Feel like my head isn't in it. It sucks, but you can't hang on to these scores too much. The score on game day is what matters. Dig in, learn why you got those questions wrong, and forget about the %. One of my biggest regrets/mistakes from the summer was letting poor scores continue to defeat me and mess with my confidence well after I was done with those questions.

You've been studying your ass off and know much more than you think. We got this.

[fearless16]

Co-signing everything above. Do the questions. Learn the law, format of the questions, tricks. Game day? ROCK IT!

[THE_U]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

[Raiden]

My scores have been decreasing the past few days, ugh, not good, just a week and half left too

If it makes you feel any better, I haven't been having a great week, either. Randomly doing poor in areas I'm strong in. Feel like my head isn't in it. It sucks, but you can't hang on to these scores too much. The score on game day is what matters. Dig in, learn why you got those questions wrong, and forget about the %. One of my biggest regrets/mistakes from the summer was letting poor scores continue to defeat me and mess with my confidence well after I was done with those questions.

You've been studying your ass off and know much more than you think. We got this.

Thanks, needed that

[Raiden]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

I may be wrong about this but from my understanding, when RAP applies, you need a validating life. I think the children alive are a validating life here? Though I thought that for class gifts, if its bad for one its bad for all, and here you could have kids born 21 years after all the validating lives die...not really sure, this question is just confusing.

[Raiden]

Adaptibar has lots of questions with the same fact pattern but a different call...I don't remember if the actual bar does this...does the bar ask us various questions based on one fact pattern? That would save time.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

So I've been using both Adaptibar and Barbri. Barbri's questions get harder as the course goes on, and I have a feeling Adaptibar's questions are getting harder too. Anyone else feel the same way? Most of the questions I've answered lately have a correct response rate of 50% or lower

[Sue]

Adaptibar has lots of questions with the same fact pattern but a different call...I don't remember if the actual bar does this...does the bar ask us various questions based on one fact pattern? That would save time.

Nope. Not any more.

[Raiden]

So I've been using both Adaptibar and Barbri. Barbri's questions get harder as the course goes on, and I have a feeling Adaptibar's questions are getting harder too. Anyone else feel the same way? Most of the questions I've answered lately have a correct response rate of 50% or lower

I have noticed it. Non-civpro questions with correct rates in the 10-30% range. Got a 54% average today :/

[Raiden]

Adaptibar has lots of questions with the same fact pattern but a different call...I don't remember if the actual bar does this...does the bar ask us various questions based on one fact pattern? That would save time.

Nope. Not any more.

So then these are fact patterns that are used in multiple bars...it could be very possible that we come across a fact pattern that we've seen on adaptibar...which would be confusing as one tries to remember what they answered previously.

[Sue]

The fact that I got 80% from NCBE OPE 4, and 84% from OPE3, freaks me out. I can't figure out if I remember the questions, or I am a beast Okay, I probably remember some of them, but I can swear not more than 15. Or more? I don't know.

[iwantmybar]

I scored 86% on OPE 3 in 1hour and 22minutes.

Definitely remembered some of them unfortunately.....

Im really considering about getting the kaplan q bank.....but $300 is big money..

[Sue]

I scored 86% on OPE 3 in 1hour and 22minutes.

Definitely remembered some of them unfortunately.....

Im really considering about getting the kaplan q bank.....but $300 is big money..

I hear Kaplan is good for MBE. But it is too late for me, exam is a week away.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

I may be wrong about this but from my understanding, when RAP applies, you need a validating life. I think the children alive are a validating life here? Though I thought that for class gifts, if its bad for one its bad for all, and here you could have kids born 21 years after all the validating lives die...not really sure, this question is just confusing.

Edit I didn't read close enough. Haha. Looking again.

[Raiden]

The fact that I got 80% from NCBE OPE 4, and 84% from OPE3, freaks me out. I can't figure out if I remember the questions, or I am a beast Okay, I probably remember some of them, but I can swear not more than 15. Or more? I don't know.

I got an 85 as well, partly because I did remember many of the questions. Ugh it feels good but then its like, you know the questions, and why haven't I been scoring this high regularly. Wouldn't 5 or so of those 100 questions be test questions from the bar? I asked adaptibar about this and they said the 100 questions are just compiled questions over the years, not from a particular bar exam.

[DaydreamBeliever]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

I think that because it's a will, it's not executed until his death. At that time, he has his second wife and 3 children, and since they are all lives in being, we should be able to know within one of their lives whether they make it to 30 and whether they have grandchildren. I could be wrong though lol.

[doubltall]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

I may be wrong about this but from my understanding, when RAP applies, you need a validating life. I think the children alive are a validating life here? Though I thought that for class gifts, if its bad for one its bad for all, and here you could have kids born 21 years after all the validating lives die...not really sure, this question is just confusing.

I'm fairly certain that the validating life is the man. The question for RAP analysis, as I understand it is, once the validating life is determined, will the devisees interest VEST within 21 years?

I think where people get hung up is whether or not people like the Man's Children will actually GET the property within 21 years (which is why the 30 yrs thing is a red herring). In reality, all that must happen to satisfy RAP is that you are certain that the rights vest/"cement" within 21 years of the validating life's death. And in the case of this question, the man is the validating life, and the time starts once he dies. And it's actually relatively simple in this case: because the interest that need vest at the termination of the validating life EASILY determined at the same time, as the man is the validating life, and the class of his children closes at his death. Makes sense to me, but I could be wrong, someone please tell me if I'm way off!

[Sue]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

I may be wrong about this but from my understanding, when RAP applies, you need a validating life. I think the children alive are a validating life here? Though I thought that for class gifts, if its bad for one its bad for all, and here you could have kids born 21 years after all the validating lives die...not really sure, this question is just confusing.

I'm fairly certain that the validating life is the man. The question for RAP analysis, as I understand it is, once the validating life is determined, will the devisees interest VEST within 21 years?

I think where people get hung up is whether or not people like the Man's Children will actually GET the property within 21 years (which is why the 30 yrs thing is a red herring). In reality, all that must happen to satisfy RAP is that you are certain that the rights vest/"cement" within 21 years of the validating life's death. And in the case of this question, the man is the validating life, and the time starts once he dies. And it's actually relatively simple in this case: because the interest that need vest at the termination of the validating life EASILY determined at the same time, as the man is the validating life, and the class of his children closes at his death. Makes sense to me, but I could be wrong, someone please tell me if I'm way off!

This got me confused. Don't we say life in being is the one whom the interest in property was transferred to, here, the wife? I tend to think that measuring life is the life tenant under RAP. I give to X for life, then to Y if so and so. X is the measuring life. No?

[doubltall]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

I may be wrong about this but from my understanding, when RAP applies, you need a validating life. I think the children alive are a validating life here? Though I thought that for class gifts, if its bad for one its bad for all, and here you could have kids born 21 years after all the validating lives die...not really sure, this question is just confusing.

I'm fairly certain that the validating life is the man. The question for RAP analysis, as I understand it is, once the validating life is determined, will the devisees interest VEST within 21 years?

I think where people get hung up is whether or not people like the Man's Children will actually GET the property within 21 years (which is why the 30 yrs thing is a red herring). In reality, all that must happen to satisfy RAP is that you are certain that the rights vest/"cement" within 21 years of the validating life's death. And in the case of this question, the man is the validating life, and the time starts once he dies. And it's actually relatively simple in this case: because the interest that need vest at the termination of the validating life EASILY determined at the same time, as the man is the validating life, and the class of his children closes at his death. Makes sense to me, but I could be wrong, someone please tell me if I'm way off!

This got me confused. Don't we say life in being is the one whom the interest in property was transferred to, here, the wife? I tend to think that measuring life is the life tenant under RAP. I give to X for life, then to Y if so and so. X is the measuring life. No?

In some cases, yes, the life tenant could be the measuring life, but that's not always the case. The measuring life can be anyone! It just has to be someone whose demise triggers the time for the 21 period to start, during which the contemplated interest must vest. In this case, it could be the man, the testator himself. In fact, it's a lot easier this way.

So the question is: will his three children's interests vest within 21 years of the man's death? The fact is, conditions of survival keep interests of class members from vesting. Due to this condition, I would say that the clause in the will DOES violate the rule against perpetuities, EXCEPT for the saving clause that moves each children's interest to that child's own children.

Thus the interest we're contemplating is A interest in Greenvale, which is held by each of the children at the man's death.

That all being said, my reasoning could STILL be wrong! I'd love to see Adaptibar's explanation for this particular question...cause that made my head hurt. And took literally an hour to reason out. Can all but guarantee I guess on a question like this come examtime.

[THE_U]

Can someone please explain this to me? The whole open class/subject to open stuff completely boggles my mind and I have never understood it and how RAP applies.

QUESTION:

In 1995 a man executed his will which in pertinent part provided, "I hereby give, devise, and bequeath Greenvale to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain the age of 30, but if any child who dies under the age of 30 is survived by a child or children, such child or children shall take and receive the share which his, her, or their parent would have received had such parent lived to attain the age of 30."

At the date of writing of his will, the man was married and had two sons. The man's wife died in 2000, and the man remarried in 2002 and had a third child in 2004--a daughter. At his death in 2010, the man was survived by his second wife and three children.

In a jurisdiction which recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities unmodified by statute, the result of the application of the rule is that the


A. remainder to the children and to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

B. remainder to the children is valid, but the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren is void because the man could have subsequently married a person who was unborn at the time the man executed his will.

C. gift in remainder to the sons or their children is valid, but the gift to the daughter or her children is void.

D. remainder to the children and the substitutionary gift to the grandchildren are valid.

I may be wrong about this but from my understanding, when RAP applies, you need a validating life. I think the children alive are a validating life here? Though I thought that for class gifts, if its bad for one its bad for all, and here you could have kids born 21 years after all the validating lives die...not really sure, this question is just confusing.

I'm fairly certain that the validating life is the man. The question for RAP analysis, as I understand it is, once the validating life is determined, will the devisees interest VEST within 21 years?

I think where people get hung up is whether or not people like the Man's Children will actually GET the property within 21 years (which is why the 30 yrs thing is a red herring). In reality, all that must happen to satisfy RAP is that you are certain that the rights vest/"cement" within 21 years of the validating life's death. And in the case of this question, the man is the validating life, and the time starts once he dies. And it's actually relatively simple in this case: because the interest that need vest at the termination of the validating life EASILY determined at the same time, as the man is the validating life, and the class of his children closes at his death. Makes sense to me, but I could be wrong, someone please tell me if I'm way off!

This got me confused. Don't we say life in being is the one whom the interest in property was transferred to, here, the wife? I tend to think that measuring life is the life tenant under RAP. I give to X for life, then to Y if so and so. X is the measuring life. No?

In some cases, yes, the life tenant could be the measuring life, but that's not always the case. The measuring life can be anyone! It just has to be someone whose demise triggers the time for the 21 period to start, during which the contemplated interest must vest. In this case, it could be the man, the testator himself. In fact, it's a lot easier this way.

So the question is: will his three children's interests vest within 21 years of the man's death? The fact is, conditions of survival keep interests of class members from vesting. Due to this condition, I would say that the clause in the will DOES violate the rule against perpetuities, EXCEPT for the saving clause that moves each children's interest to that child's own children.

Thus the interest we're contemplating is A interest in Greenvale, which is held by each of the children at the man's death.

That all being said, my reasoning could STILL be wrong! I'd love to see Adaptibar's explanation for this particular question...cause that made my head hurt. And took literally an hour to reason out. Can all but guarantee I guess on a question like this come examtime.

Adaptibar's explanation:

D is the correct answer. This is a tricky question. The issue of surviving 30 years would appear to trigger a rule against perpetuities (RAP) violation. However, in this case the children's remainder interests vest at their father's death because the class of children will be closed. Because each child can be used as a measuring life, every grandchild's interest will vest within a life in being plus twenty-one years. Therefore, both gifts are valid. C is incorrect because the daughter was a child of the man at the time the will went into effect. A and B are both incorrect because the interests are created at the man's death, not at the time the will was written and executed. Vested interests do not violate the RAP. The man's will merely states that the vested interest will only become possessory after his wife's death for those of his children who reached the age of 30. No requirement of survival is actually necessary for the gift to vest. Because the interests are vested, the man's substitutionary gift to any grandchildren of the deceased offspring under 30 will also be valid.

I think you have the right idea about guessing, though. If this were on the real exam, I probably would have skipped it and then come back to it and probably ended up guessing. This is a bitch of a question.

[Raiden]

I have a question I am confused about:

At the defendant's trial for stealing an automobile, the defendant called a character witness who testified that the defendant had an excellent reputation for honesty. In rebuttal, the prosecutor calls another witness to testify that he recently saw the defendant cheat on a college examination.

The prosecution witness's testimony should be
A. admitted, because the defendant has "opened the door" to the prosecutor's proof of bad character evidence.
B. admitted, because the cheating involves "dishonesty or false statement."
C. excluded, because it has no probative value on any issue in the case.
D. excluded, because the defendant's cheating can be inquired into only on cross-examination of the defendant's witness.

Correct answer is D. And I don't understand why, I though specific instances of conduct cannot be used in criminal trials, unless mimic. Someone help?

This is the reasoning provided:

The correct answer is D. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible but not essential, such as in this case, proof of that trait of character may be made by testimony regarding reputation or by testimony in the form of opinion. Specific instances of conduct can only be used on cross-examination. Because the defendant's honesty is not an essential element of the charge, the prosecutor cannot use specific incidents of conduct to show that the defendant is guilty. However, the prosecutor could have inquired about relevant specific instances of misconduct on cross-examination of the defendant's witness. Answer A is incorrect because, even though the "door" may have been opened regarding the defendant's honesty, the prosecutor cannot use specific incidents of misconduct to rebut the character evidence testimony given by the defendant's witness, except in cross-examination.

[NY_Sea]

I have a question I am confused about:

At the defendant's trial for stealing an automobile, the defendant called a character witness who testified that the defendant had an excellent reputation for honesty. In rebuttal, the prosecutor calls another witness to testify that he recently saw the defendant cheat on a college examination.

The prosecution witness's testimony should be
A. admitted, because the defendant has "opened the door" to the prosecutor's proof of bad character evidence.
B. admitted, because the cheating involves "dishonesty or false statement."
C. excluded, because it has no probative value on any issue in the case.
D. excluded, because the defendant's cheating can be inquired into only on cross-examination of the defendant's witness.

Correct answer is D. And I don't understand why, I though specific instances of conduct cannot be used in criminal trials, unless mimic. Someone help?

This is the reasoning provided:

The correct answer is D. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible but not essential, such as in this case, proof of that trait of character may be made by testimony regarding reputation or by testimony in the form of opinion. Specific instances of conduct can only be used on cross-examination. Because the defendant's honesty is not an essential element of the charge, the prosecutor cannot use specific incidents of conduct to show that the defendant is guilty. However, the prosecutor could have inquired about relevant specific instances of misconduct on cross-examination of the defendant's witness. Answer A is incorrect because, even though the "door" may have been opened regarding the defendant's honesty, the prosecutor cannot use specific incidents of misconduct to rebut the character evidence testimony given by the defendant's witness, except in cross-examination.

You're getting confused... MIMIC is a way to bring in specific bad acts WITHOUT having to use them as character evidence, because, as stated in the explanatory answer, bad acts can only be brought up on cross-examination of the witness.

So an example of a way that question could be reworked to allow the cheating testimony: If the D's witness is still up on the bench after testifying to D's good character for truthfulness, the prosecution on cross could ask the witness about his cheating on the college exam. BUT be careful, if the prosecution asks the witness about cheating on the exam and the witness denies it, the prosecution has to move on and can't address it any further.

[myrtlewinston]

Yeah, I've watched the K and Property lectures. Started Civ Pro yesterday.

Grossman is awesome. The lectures are really good for the big picture.

Does he cover the essential rules?
Btw, the Barbri MBE review, while entertaining, is not worth it.

Yeah, he hits all of the main rules and conveys them in plain, basic language.

I've finished Civ Pro and Evidence. He cleared many things up for me! Will you be watching everything?

[THE_U]

I have a question I am confused about:

At the defendant's trial for stealing an automobile, the defendant called a character witness who testified that the defendant had an excellent reputation for honesty. In rebuttal, the prosecutor calls another witness to testify that he recently saw the defendant cheat on a college examination.

The prosecution witness's testimony should be
A. admitted, because the defendant has "opened the door" to the prosecutor's proof of bad character evidence.
B. admitted, because the cheating involves "dishonesty or false statement."
C. excluded, because it has no probative value on any issue in the case.
D. excluded, because the defendant's cheating can be inquired into only on cross-examination of the defendant's witness.

Correct answer is D. And I don't understand why, I though specific instances of conduct cannot be used in criminal trials, unless mimic. Someone help?

This is the reasoning provided:

The correct answer is D. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible but not essential, such as in this case, proof of that trait of character may be made by testimony regarding reputation or by testimony in the form of opinion. Specific instances of conduct can only be used on cross-examination. Because the defendant's honesty is not an essential element of the charge, the prosecutor cannot use specific incidents of conduct to show that the defendant is guilty. However, the prosecutor could have inquired about relevant specific instances of misconduct on cross-examination of the defendant's witness. Answer A is incorrect because, even though the "door" may have been opened regarding the defendant's honesty, the prosecutor cannot use specific incidents of misconduct to rebut the character evidence testimony given by the defendant's witness, except in cross-examination.

You are confusing Rule 404 (character evidence) with 608 (Witness Character for Truthfulness/Untruthfulness)

You are correct that you can't use evidence of prior bad acts, crimes, character in order to prove that the person acted in conformity with that trait.

But that's not what the evidence is being offered for in this case. The prosecution is seeking to offer the evidence of the D cheating in order to rebut the D's character witness's testimony that the D is an honest person. The prosecution is essentially "testing" the witness's purported knowledge of the Defendant. The prosecution isn't trying to offer the evidence for the forbidden inference that "because D cheated on a test one time/has the propensity to cheat, he probably stole the automobile." They are trying to offer the evidence to essentially say that the D witness is full of crap and shouldn't be believed.

Now, under 608, you cannot use extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct in order to show that the witness's lack of credibility (i.e. answer choice D). You can, however, call a witness to testify to their opinion of D's char. for truthfulness/untruthfulness or what his reputation for truthfulness/untruthfulness, OR ask the opposing side's witness questions about specific acts, that prove truthfulness/untruthfulness.

In this case, it would have been absolutely proper for the prosecution to cross-examine D's witness on whether they have heard that D has cheated on a college exam. The prosecution could not, however, call another witness to explain that the D had in fact cheated on an exam (because that's extrinsic evidence).

If this explanation makes no sense, I apologize. I am really really bad at explaining stuff. I will say that I believe evidence is best learned by using the federal rules themselves. I thought the way Barbri presents everything is really confusing and hard to compartmentalize.

[Raiden]

Thanks for the explanation above guys, that does help. I just have been confused between character evidence and impeachment. My understanding now is that getting in evidence regarding impeachment/truthfulness is a lot easier than getting in character evidence. The door was open to the prosecution to talk about truthfulness, but that could only be through the witness who first brought it up.